NEW EARL OF EGMONT

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 3967, 23 September 1930, Page 7

NEW EARL OF EGMONT

TITLE FOR FORMER RANCHER ESTATES WORTH £500.000 OLD PENSIONER'S CLAIM FAILS The matter of the succession to the Earldom of Egmont was dealt with by Air Justice Eve in the Chancery Division, London, last month.

The judge made a declaration confirming a Master’s certificate issued in Chambers, that Mr Frederick Joseph Trevelyan Perceval, who has been a rancher in Alberta, is entitled to the estates.

The estates are in Hampshire, Berkshire, and Surrey, and are said to be of the total value of £500,000. One of the claimants to the estates was an old age pensioner, seventy-four years old, who appeared in person to support his claim.

When the affairs of the estate were before the Chancery Courts in June, 1929, it was stated that Mr Perceval had taken up residence at Avon Castle, Ringwood, Hampshire, as the tenth carl.

Other claimants mentioned were Mr James W. Perceval, a baker, of Hornsey, and Mr Robert Pownall, a retired optician, of Haydock, Lancashire United with the earldom is the English baronv of Level and New Holland.

Mr Neville Gray, representing the trustees of the Egmont estates, said that there were two summonses before the court, one the result of inquiries ordered by Mr Justice Maugham last year, and the other to vary the Master’s certificate, made as a result of those inquiries. The estates were settled under two settlements, dated 1870 and 1889, and numerous limitations on those settlements had to be discussed. MR POWNALL’S CLAIM. One of the sons of the second marriage of the second earl became Prime Minister of England. [This was Mr Spencer Perceval, who was assassinated in the House of Commons in 1812.] Counsel traced the descendants of that son to Mr Frederick Joseph Trevelyan Perceval, and the Master had found that he was entitled to the estates. The summons to vary the Master’s finding was a summons by Mr Robert Pownall, and appeared to be based not on anything in dispute about the pedigree. The only charges on the estate were jointures of £2,000 each to Lucy, Countess of Egmont, widow of the seventh earl, and to Florence, widow of the ninth earl. The trustees thought that Mr Frederick Perceval, the present claimant, was entitled, but altogether eight claims had been lodged, only two of which were seriously persisted in.

Mr Pownall, who is seventy-four years of age, appeared in person, and was informed by the judge that he had to show that the Master was wrong in disallowing his claim. Mr Pownall said that the Master informed him that he could not claim to be the earl through his grandmother, therefore he could not become the earl. He claimed descent from Lady Cecil, but it had been stated that her marriage certificate could not be found. Ho had, however, found evidence of it in a book at the British Museum, and there were particulars of it in the diary of the first earl. HOOK FOUND IN BRITISH MUSEUM. In 1736 the son of the first earl married Catherin Cecil, second daughter of James, Lord Salisbury, and of that union Phillip Tufton Perceval was born in 1740. From him he claimed descent. Phillip Tufton Perceval was turned out from home, and joined the Navy. At the age of twenty-two he was in command of the greatest warship of that time. In 1790 he married Catherine Hennessy, a poor and pretty comedienne, who signed the marriage certificate with a cross. He died in 1795, leaving issue Sarah,, claimant’s grandmother.

Mr Pownall produced a photograph of a page in a book found at the British Museum, on which he relied. Seventysix years ago, he said, his father was a poor shoemaker, who had served an apprenticeship with the great-great-grandfather of one of His Majesty’s present judges. His father said to him : “Robert, when you have the opportunity, look up the family history. There are great titles and estates. The Prime Minister, Spencer Perceval, was my grandfather’s brother. He was the seventh son of Tufton. When my mother was seven years of age she was living near Liverpool, with her widowed mother.

“That was in 1800, and there came to them one day two ladies, in a coach and four, sisters of the Prime Minister, desiring to see their brother’s widow and daughter. They offered to take the daughter, but not the mother, and bring her up as their own, and leave their property and everything to her. “ But the mother would not allow her to be taken, saying: ‘ While my husband is alive you refused to recognise us, because he married beneath him, and I shall not let you have the child so long as 1 can work for her. My marriage certificate is here, with a cross.’ ” QUESTION OE MR POWNALL’S COSTS. Mr Justice Eve, giving judgment, said there was not sufficient evidence to establish the claim of Mr Pownall, and the Master had done right in disallowing his claim. Mr Pownall said that he was a poor man, in receipt of an old age pension of 10s a week, and asked that he be not ordered to pay the costs.

Mr Justice Eve: I can only say what is just and right. If you make a claim which you cannot establish, it must be dismissed with costs. 1 cannot make other people pay your costs in attempting to assert a claim you have not established. Perhaps, if you adopt a different attitude toward them, they may see fit to excuse you the costs bye-aud-bye, but if they ask for them they arc entitled to them, as a matter of justice.